Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 219–228 | Cite as

Promoting responsible conduct: Striving for change rather than consensus

Commentary on “Ambiguity, trust, and the responsible conduct of research” (F. Grinnell)
Article

Conclusion

I believe that the ASBMB and the SFN, as well as many scientific, engineering, and other professional societies have taken the right first step. They have taken some responsibility for providing guidelines to their members and others working in related areas. This is how it should be. If professional guidelines are to be meaningful, they must be defined in large part by the practitioners.

Yet, having agreed that we need professional societies to become involved, we now must determine the nature of that involvement. I hope that a comparison of the ASBMB and SFN documents will serve to illustrate the differences between two approaches. I cannot be sure that one is better than the other. But I do believe that we should not, cannot, avoid the details. I also believe that to affect change one needs to capture the attention of the audience and to promote active thought—discussion if possible, controversy if necessary. And change is what we need.

Keywords

neuroscience professional societies sharing materials Society for Neuroscience 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Grinnell, F. (1992) The Scientific Attitude (2nd ed), Guilford Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Society for Neuroscience (1999) Responsible conduct regarding scientific communication, The Journal of Neuroscience 19: iii-xvi (also available at www.sfn.org/guidelines).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Chemical Society (1995) Ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research, Chem. Rev. 95: 11A-13A.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 927–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grinnell, F. (1997) Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct. J. Lab Clin. Med. 129: 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institutes of Health Guide for Grants and Contracts, Public Health Service policy relating to distribution of unique research resources produced with PHS funding. 21 (33), September 11, 1992. (http://www.nih.gov/grants/guide/1992/92.09.11/public-health-service/htm)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, B.A. & Zigmond, M.J. (1996) Teaching ethics: resources for researchers. Trends in Neuroscience 19: 523–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zigmond, M.J. & Fischer, B.A. (1998) Surviving graduate school. In: Anderson, M. (ed.) Survival skills for graduate school and beyond, New Directions for Education Series #101, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 29–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology, S-526 Biomedical Science TowerUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations